>Unfortunately, I can't find any indication that these concepts have been reflected
>in the current IPv6 routing protocols. None of our IPv6 routing protocol documents
>deal with site-local boundaries or SBR behaviour explicitly.
>
>There are currently four standards for how IPv6 routes will be handled in BGP, OSPF,
>IS-IS and RIP. I will refer to these documents as BGP-IPv6, OSPF-IPv6 and IS-IS-IPv6,
>and RIP-IPv6 respectively:
in my opinion, site border routers need to have ability to run
separate entity of RIP/OSPFv3/IS-IS for each site (don't mix them up).
there's no need for protocol modification, since there will be no
interaction between routes in site A and site B.
NEC IX router is the only implementation supporting this, as far as
i know (i'm a bit embarrassed, KAME doesn't handle this - yet).
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
